4 ms·

The male surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army; and no, that is not the reason why men and not women go to war.

• JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > make surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army ...why would you populate your army solely with the surplus? The point is you have a buffer that you can burn without immediately impacting your demographics for the long term. > that is not the reason why men and not women go to war It's a serious theory [1]. (It's more correct to say the surplus and it share a common cause.) [1] https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_931 https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_931
• carlosjobim 11mo ago
  The reason for war has always been to kill off young men, since they are disposable fertility wise and an internal threat to current holders of power. This has been the case since the stone age and will be the case until the end of time.
  • guenthert 11mo ago
    That was the topic of T.H.E.M. by G.C. Edmonson (or so I remember -- I read the translation "Die A.N.D.E.R.E.N." many years ago). Made for a good story, reality is a bit more complex methinks. There's after all a lot of money to be made with war.
    • carlosjobim 11mo ago
      Money is nothing but a representation of power. If it was about money itself, rulers could just print limitless amounts (which they have tried a number of times).
      • IAmBroom 11mo ago
        You really don't understand a lot of things you are talking about.